Analysis Of W. D. Ross Ideas Of How We Should Act

1178 Words3 Pages

W.D. Ross’ Ideas of How We Should Act
Part I
William David Ross was a Scottish philosopher, born in the late 1800s. He studied at the University of Edinburgh, and then at Balliol College in Oxford, England. Ross held some different views from other philosophers in that he was a moral realist. He thought that there were moral truths in the world, just as black and white as mathematics. He differed from the consequentialist’s thinking that - you do what brings the most good; by saying that choosing your actions to produce the most good was only one of several prima facie duties. (a) Prima facie duties were obligations which he outlined which should determine a person’s actions in most situations.
(b) Prima facie means, “at first sight” in Latin, and W.D. Ross came up with duties that were binding if all other things were equal. The prima facie duties that Ross presented were:
1. Fidelity – he believed that one should keep their promises and contracts, and should not deceive others. This would include lies and deceit.
2. Reparation – this duty would have to do with making up for injuries done to others. This means that if you have wronged someone else, you have the duty to repair the wrong.
3. Gratitude – you need to be grateful for good deeds done to you, and if possible pass those good deeds on to others.
4. Non-injury – this requires a person to avoid injury of another person physically or psychologically. This includes not harming their happiness, security, or health, and even includes their character (in such cases today we say that libel can be a crime, because it hurts someone’s character). Along with avoiding intentionally harming others, this also includes injury resulting in negligence or ignorance. In ignorance,...

... middle of paper ...

...her or more damaging weapons, thus in an odd way fulfilling the beneficence prima facie duty by not hurting more people. He would also be improving himself, by working in a field that could help him find a better job, and he would be helping his family by providing financial support for his wife and children. Hopefully the research he did would never be used, and so he would not be violating his duty to not harm others.
Ross’ prima facie duties are a good guideline, but not all moral decisions are as clear as an obligatory rule. In life we are faced with many decisions that have a positive and negative, and we must be able to make judgments that we can truly say that we did the right thing. Sometimes we do not know all of the ramifications of our actions, but hopefully we act in a way that we are truly able to be at peace and know that we did the right thing.

Open Document